U.S. Response I:  Bush Proposes Homeland Security Department

Looking to improve U.S. efforts to defend against terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush last night proposed creating a Department of Homeland Security.  The Cabinet-level department would help coordinate intelligence and strengthen U.S. terrorism defenses, according to Bush (see GSN, May 31).

“As we have learned more about the plans and capabilities of the terrorist network, we have concluded that our government must be reorganized to deal more effectively with the new threats of the 21^st century,” Bush said (Allen/Miller, Washington Post, June 7).

The proposed department would incorporate a number of agencies involved in anti-terrorism measures, including the Customs Service, Secret Service and Coast Guard, according to the New York Times.  The Homeland Security Department would be staffed by about 170,000 employees taken from other federal agencies and would receive a $37.5 billion budget.  The Bush administration hopes to have the new department up and running by Jan. 1, according to documents on the plan (Bumiller/Sanger, New York Times, June 7).

The new department would consist of four divisions — border and transportation security, emergency preparedness and response, WMD countermeasures and information analysis and infrastructure protection, as well as the Secret Service, according to the Washington Post.

The border and transportations security division would incorporate:

*         The Immigration and Naturalization Service, currently under the Justice Department (see GSN, May 21);

*         The Customs Service, currently under the Treasury Department (see GSN, June 5);

*         The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, currently under the Agriculture Department (see GSN, March 15);

*         The Federal Protection Agency, currently under the General Services Administration; and

*         The Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration, both currently under the Transportation Department (see related GSN story, today).

The emergency preparedness and response division would incorporate:

*         The Federal Emergency Management Agency, currently independent;

*         Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Assets, currently under the Health and Human Services Department;

*         The Domestic Emergency Support Team, currently an interagency operation;

*         Nuclear Incident Response, currently under the Energy Department (see GSN, April 8);

*         The Office of Domestic Preparedness, currently under Justice; and

*         The National Domestic Preparedness Office, currently under the FBI.

The WMD countermeasures division would incorporate:

*         The Civilian Biodefense Research Programs, currently under Health and Human Services;

*         The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, currently under Energy (see GSN, April 22);

*         The new National Biological Weapons Defense Analysis Center; and

*         The Plum Island Animal Disease Center, currently under Agriculture.

The information analysis and infrastructure protection division would incorporate:

*         The Critical Infrastructure and Assurance Office, currently under the Commerce Department;

*         The Federal Computer Incident Response Center, currently under the GSA;

*         The National Communications System, currently under the Defense Department;

*         The National Infrastructure Protection Center, currently under the FBI; and

*         The National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, currently under Energy (Thomas Ricks, Washington Post, June 7).

FBI, CIA Not Included

Under the new plan, the FBI and CIA would remain independent and primarily unaffected, according to the New York Times (see GSN, June 5).  The new department would review intelligence gathered by the FBI, CIA and other agencies.  The department, however, would not have access to raw intelligence information and would have no capabilities to gather intelligence on its own.

Some intelligence experts have questioned whether the new Homeland Security Department would be an improvement on the current system because it would only receive intelligence reports for review rather than the original data, according to the Times.  The recently revealed clues about the Sept. 11 attacks were discovered in such raw information and not in prepared reports, the Times reported.

“They missed it before, and under this structure, there’s nothing to suggest they wouldn’t miss it again,” said a former official who has advised the Bush administration on intelligence issues.

Possible New Role for Tom Ridge

It is unknown whether current Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge would be chosen to head the new department, but it is expected that he will maintain a role in domestic security, according to administration officials. 

Ridge could also remain in his current position, which would still be maintained even after the new department is created, they said.  Ridge’s position is set up in a way to be a confidential adviser to the president, and his office is not subject to congressional oversight, as any new cabinet department would be, according to the Times.

Ridge himself last night said that Bush would still want to preserve the option of having a homeland security adviser.

“The president would still need an adviser, and I think he’d like to preserve that option for himself and future presidents to have an adviser in the White House but also to reorganize the federal agency so that one mission — the primary mission of the president, that is to protect America and our way of life — can be established within the Department of Homeland Security,” Ridge said.

Congress Supportive of Plan ...

Congress appeared to welcome the idea of creating the new Homeland Security Department, since Congress would have more oversight, according to the Times.  A number of members of Congress said such a change has taken too long.

“The timing is good,” said Representative Jane Harman (D-Calif.).  “It would have been better nine months ago” (Bumiller/Sanger, New York Times).

The new proposal also goes beyond measures recently put forward by members of Congress to elevate the Office of Homeland Security to a Cabinet-level department, according to the Washington Post.  Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) introduced a bill to create a Homeland Security Department, which his committee approved last month (see GSN, May 3). 

The Bush administration saw that the Lieberman bill “was gaining traction, and the worst of all worlds was that it would be passed by veto-proof majorities with the president in a reactive position,” said a national security official.

Lieberman said he supported the Bush proposal but that he also expects “opposition from the bureaucracies that are being put under the new secretary of homeland security and from members of Congress who are close to those bureaucracies” (Allen/Miller, Washington Post).

… While Unions Oppose It

Union leaders who represent the federal workers who would be affected by the new department, however, have said they will oppose the Bush plan, according to the Washington Post. 

“We think it’s a mistake,” said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents Customs Service employees.  “A massive realignment could be a distraction.  I’ve seen nothing that indicates that (the agencies) would be more effective in one department.”

The National Border Patrol Council, which represents 9,000 Border Patrol agents, also criticized the plan.

“I guess the thought process is that agencies can’t cooperate unless they’re under one roof,” said National Border Patrol Council President T.J. Bonner.  “If that’s really true, let’s take all the agencies that have some piece of the homeland security pie — 46 federal agencies — and put them under one massive agency and let the thing implode of its own weight, which is what will happen” (Nakashima/Walsh, Washington Post, June 7).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Senate Passes Anti-Terrorism Bill

The U.S. Senate early today passed a $31 billion bill to provide funds for anti-terrorism and other programs, despite a White House threat to veto the bill, which would provide billions of dollars more than the Bush administration requested (see GSN, June 5).

The bill passed by a vote of 71-22 after earlier parliamentary squabbling resulted in Senate Republicans agreeing to move the administration’s fight to the next round of negotiations between House and Senate representatives.

The White House had requested $27 billion, and the House of Representatives previously passed a version of the bill that would provide $28.8 billion (Helen Dewar, Washington Post, June 7).

The Senate bill would provide $14 billion for defense, including operations in Afghanistan, weapons procurement and intelligence.  It would provide $8.4 billion for homeland security, such as bolstering security at airports and nuclear facilities.  Another $2.1 billion would go to foreign aid and U.S. diplomatic efforts.  New York would receive $5.5 billion to recover from the Sept. 11 attacks (Associated Press/New York Times, June 7).

Back to top

U.S. Response III:  House Passes Maritime Security Legislation

The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday to extend the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard and other maritime anti-terrorism measures (see GSN, May 23)

The Maritime Transportation Act, passed by a voice vote, would require the Transportation Department to review security at foreign seaports and would allow the Coast Guard to deny entry to any ship that does not meet U.S. security standards or that arrived from an uncertified foreign port (see GSN, March 21).  The legislation would also require all ships coming from other countries to notify the Coast Guard 96 hours before entering U.S. waters and would expand the Coast Guard’s zone of jurisdiction to 12 miles offshore.

The bill also would require naval shipping companies to provide detailed information on cargo destined for the United States, such as content and point of origin, at least 24 hours before being loaded at a foreign port, according to a U.S. State Department press release.  All ships operating in U.S. waters would have to be equipped with electronic transponders by 2005 that would identify them and their location.  The bill would also limit access to secure areas in seaports to those who carried a security card to be developed by Transportation (see GSN, April 29).

The bill, based on the aviation security act passed last November, would provide a legal basis for the existing “sea marshals” program, based on the “air marshals,” the release said.  Sea marshal units could board ships heading into U.S. ports just before they enter in order to protect against terrorist attacks.

The House legislation still needs to go through conference committee with similar legislation passed by the Senate in December, according to the release.  One major difference in the two bills is that the Senate version provides $1.1 billion over five years to improve U.S. port security and $3.3 million in loan guarantees, while the House version provides $225 million over three years (U.S. State Department release, June 5).

Back to top

International Response:  NATO Must Act Preemptively, Rumsfeld Says

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday told other NATO members that they must combat terrorism and take preemptive action against terrorist networks and hostile states that develop weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, June 3).

“The only defense is to take the effort to find these global networks and to deal with them, as the United States did in Afghanistan,” Rumsfeld said at a meeting of alliance defense ministers.  “Now, is that defensive, or it is offensive?  I personally think of it as defensive” (Thom Shanker, New York Times, June 7).

Rumsfeld also said NATO could not wait for “absolute proof” to act against terrorists and states trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (Chalmers/Taylor, Reuters/Washington Post, June 7).

Rumsfeld urged the members to expand NATO’s definition of collective self-defense.  NATO has decided terrorism is now its primary threat, but the defense ministers did not formally debate altering the NATO charter to expand the definition of self-defense to include preemptive strikes, according to the New York Times.  Rumsfeld did not present plans for opening a new front in the war on terrorism, a senior U.S. Defense official said (Shanker, New York Times).

The defense ministers issued a statement yesterday reaffirming that the alliance is still “a vital contributor to security in the Euro-Atlantic area” and saying NATO must adapt to face new asymmetric threats in the world (U.S. State Department release, June 6).

For further information, see:

NATO

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Russia, China Still Proliferating, Official Says

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Despite signing on to aid the Bush administration’s global anti-terrorism effort, Russia and China continue to lead the world in proliferating weapons of mass destruction technologies, including to terror-sponsoring states, a senior U.S. official said at a congressional hearing yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 31).

Each country’s leadership has failed to fully implement its statements and commitments to curb WMD proliferation, Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John Wolf told a Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee.

“Cooperation from China and Russia is inconsistent,” said Wolf.  “Policy implementation has not matched public and private assurances.  Trade by entities in each country is contributing directly and significantly to precisely the threats that the Russian and Chinese governments say they oppose.”

Wolf said each country has helped the United States in different ways in its efforts to fight terrorism since Sept. 11 and that the leaders of both countries have agreed with the concept that terrorist possession of weapons of mass destruction is in none of the countries’ security interests.

Nevertheless, Wolf said problems persist, including official Russian export policies allowing cooperation on a nuclear power plant with Iran (see GSN, May 30), exports of nuclear fuel to unsafeguarded facilities in India (see GSN, April 30) and proliferation by Russian entities that may not reflect official policy (see GSN, May 17).

“Russia’s policy on such exports is generally to interpret its nonproliferation commitments narrowly,” he said.

There are concerns, he said, that China continues to proliferate nuclear technologies to unsafeguarded facilities or programs, and specifically, to proliferate chemical weapons, missile and nuclear technologies to Iran (see GSN, May 16).

Wolf said Chinese entities recently provided Pakistan with missile-related technical assistance, and Chinese entities have provided dual-use missile-related items or assistance to proliferating concerns such as Iran, North Korea and Libya.

He noted sanctions imposed by the Bush administration on five Chinese entities over the past six months for proliferation (see GSN, May 17).

India and Pakistan “conceivably would never have developed nuclear weapons or the means to deliver them without assistance from Russia and China,” said International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii).

Not Doing Enough, Senators Suggest

One senior Republican senator criticized the Bush Administration, suggesting the administration was acting similarly to the Clinton administration.

Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) criticized the administration for not pressing the two countries firmly enough and said the administration is giving too much credence to the policy assurances of the Russian and Chinese leadership.

“We’ve seen here for several years now, State Department export folks and from Commerce, proceed along on the basis of taking at face value these political statements from the highest levels … that they really do want to control all of this stuff, and apparently this administration is adopting that same approach,” he said.  “I find it disconcerting to say the least.”

Wolf did strike a number of positive notes in his testimony, saying there has been growing agreement and cooperation between the United States and Russia on the problems of terrorism and proliferation.

“The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that with both Russia and China we’re working to develop broader relationships that among other things will enable us to combat terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.  We seem to have agreed that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are threats to each of us and the world collectively,” he said.

Wolf cited an agreement made by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in May to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, May 24) and the creation of a NATO-Russian Council to implement that commitment (see GSN, May 29).

He said Russia had updated its export laws in 2001, has been working with the United States on improving its export enforcement operations and “has limited some particularly dangerous exports” (see GSN, May 31).

The Chinese government, Wolf said, has in the past five years promulgated nation-wide nuclear and nuclear dual-use technology export control regulations. Chinese officials have told the administration they plan to increase chemical and biological weapons export controls, he said (see GSN, April 5).

He said, though, the Chinese like the Russians have not followed through on implementing controls.

“We look at the direction the Chinese are going, we are encouraged by what we hear from every level of government about the commitment to nonproliferation, but we’re not as much encouraged by the fact of what is there in terms of legislative and administrative arrangements … and quite less satisfied with the enforcement.”

Thompson said there was no cause for optimism regarding the actions of either government.

“I hope that deep down inside you truly understand that what these high-level officials say is absolutely meaningless,” Thompson told Wolf.  “We’re not making headway with regards to the two most prominent proliferators in the world.”

Akaka pointed out that Putin in May 2000 amended a presidential decree on nuclear exports to allow the export in exceptional cases of nuclear technology and equipment to countries with unsafeguarded facilities.

New President, New Policy

“Things are different in this administration,” said Wolf. “We are not particularly diplomatic … with both our friends, those who are not as friendly, and those on the other side.”

He said, for instance, the United States sanctioned a Chinese entity a month before Bush visited Beijing for a summit.

Wolf in his prepared written testimony warned Russia that if it does not terminate nonproliferation assistance to Iran and other countries, “U.S. sanctions may be required.”

With respect to China, Wolf reiterated a vow by Bush that China’s fulfillment of its nonproliferation commitments would be an important factor in determining how far the new U.S.-China relationship can develop.

Bush “said the same thing to the Russians in Moscow in May,” Wolf said.

The United States also has offered “lucrative incentives” to encourage Moscow to curb cooperation with Iran, he said.

Back to top

India-Pakistan:  India Prepares for War Amidst Diplomatic Efforts

India prepared for war as international diplomats today continued to pressure both India and Pakistan to take steps toward peace, according to reports (see GSN, June 6).

The Indian military is seeking final authorization to invade Pakistan’s side of the disputed Kashmir territory in mid-June to destroy Islamic militants’ camps, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.  The attack would begin with air strikes and followed with assaults by troops flown in via helicopter, military sources said.

India plans to seize and hold parts of Pakistan’s portion of Kashmir, and most Indian officers expected the conflict to last about a week before international pressure would lead to a ceasefire, according to the Herald.  The military believes it has the political backing for an invasion, the Herald reported.

There is only the “slimmest chance” of a conflict leading to nuclear war, one Indian officer said, adding that Pakistan can no longer use the nuclear option to deter India (Rahul Bedi, Sydney Morning Herald, June 7).

Although Indian officials said nuclear war is unlikely, the country has taken steps to prepare for a war involving weapons of mass destruction, including drafting contingency plans for responding to a WMD attack, according to the Financial Times.  Plans include treating victims, stockpiling fuel and food, closing air space and evacuating civilians.

“The contingency plan for war is in place,” a senior government official said.  “It will be activated as soon as the troops are mobilized.”

If a nuclear strike against India occurs, there is little the government can do to evacuate or save civilians, officials said. 

“Instead, priority would be given to the political leadership, the military commanders and key personnel needed to keep the country fighting,” a senior official said.

The Indian Defense Ministry has told private companies to mass-produce portable nuclear shelters — currently available only to the military — for civilians (see GSN, May 28). 

India is also preparing for a biological or chemical weapons attack.  Authorities have designated hospitals in big cities to respond to certain illnesses, and some doctors have received training to deal with chemical or biological attacks.  India has also ordered three mobile units for dealing with chemical attacks from Germany (Edna Fernandes, Financial Times, June 7).

Worries Over Pakistan’s Command and Control System

Meanwhile, critics of Pakistan’s nuclear program and some senior British officials expressed concern that Pakistani army officers could launch nuclear missiles without orders from the country’s leadership.

Although Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf officially has control of the arsenal, Pakistan’s command and control system has “uncertainties” and communication problems that could increase the risk of a nuclear launch without central orders, a senior British source said.

“Should a nuclear war occur, it may well be that the order is not given by the chief executive or the prime minister or whoever.  That decision may be taken by a brigadier, who will decide whether you and I live or die,” said Pervez Hoodbhoy of Islamabad’s Quaid-e-Azam University (David Blair, London Telegraph, June 7).

Most Pakistanis and Indian Do Not Fear Nuclear War

Despite continuing warnings of nuclear conflict from diplomats and analysts worldwide, most Pakistanis and Indians are not living in constant fear of a nuclear strike, according to Knight Ridder News Service (see GSN, Jan. 28).  

The two countries have fought wars before, and the conflict was usually restricted to border areas and did not target civilians, Indian military expert Bharat Karnad said.  During the wars, daily life for most people in the region continued as normal.  “People here are inured to such wars because it doesn’t cost them anything,” Karnad said.

“Here we are, sitting in a very peaceful atmosphere,” said Gul Siddiq, a chauffeur in Islamabad.  “There is no danger of war, because everyone knows that both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons.  When both sides have nuclear weapons, neither side can use them.”

“It’s not Pakistan and India that have created the threat of nuclear war,” said Shireen Mazari of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Pakistan.  “It’s all the commentators in America who have gotten on to calculating how many war dead there will be” (Moritsugu/Dorgan, Knight Ridder News Service/Philadelphia Inquirer, June 7).

Countries Disagree on Monitors in Kashmir

While most South Asians might not worry about nuclear war, international leaders have expressed concern, and the United States and United Kingdom have discussed the possibility of a joint U.S.-British team to monitor the Line of Control dividing Kashmir. 

British Defense Secretary Geoffrey Hoon and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have discussed sending a military monitoring team to the region, the London Times reported today.  Rumsfeld will discuss the proposal with Pakistani and Indian officials when he visits the region next week, according the Times.  The team would watch for militants infiltrating across the Line of Control into India’s side of Kashmir (Michael Evans, London Times, June 7).

India, however, has rejected outside monitoring forces.  The border along the Line of Control is “very complicated” with rugged terrain, Indian Ambassador to the United States Lalit Mansingh said Wednesday on the Jim Lehrer NewsHour.  “And it’s only the troops of India and Pakistan which can jointly and effectively check any kind of infiltration,” he said.

“If the Indian army and the Pakistani army who are there on the border are not able to check it, how to you expect an international group of monitors to check this?” he added.

Mansingh also repeated India’s position that the two countries must solve the dispute over Kashmir bilaterally.  India has seen no signs that infiltration across the Line of Control has decreased, despite promises from Musharraf, he added. (see GSN, June 3).  Pakistan must take visible steps to end terrorism before the two countries can even discuss de-escalation, Mansingh said (Margaret Warner, PBS’s Jim Lehrer NewsHour, June 5).

Pakistani Ambassador to the United States Maleeha Lodhi said Pakistan is willing to discuss proposals for monitoring the border while repeating Pakistan’s position that a third party should be involved.  Referring to India’s proposal that the two countries form a joint monitoring force, Lodhi said, “If this is a serious proposal, it should be made to us.”

“We’d like to discuss this, as indeed our own proposal, which is we have called for a neutral, impartial monitoring force along the Line of Control — because if tomorrow if India says one thing, which indeed is happening right now, and we say another, who is to decide which claim is correct?” Lodhi said.

Pakistan is taking steps to crack down on militants and has made a commitment not to allow terrorists to use its territory, Lodhi said, adding, “we’ve got to have time.”  Indian threats of war only detract from Pakistan’s efforts to stop terrorism, she said, adding that Pakistan has seen no evidence that India “is prepared to shed war as an option” (Gwen Ifill, PBS’s Jim Lehrer NewsHour, June 5).

U.S. Diplomat Tries to Find Resolution

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage flew to India today to begin talks with officials there after meeting with Musharraf in Pakistan yesterday.  Armitage said his discussion with Musharraf provided a “very good basis” for averting war (Reuters/Globe and Mail, June 7).

“We are discussing all sorts of monitoring mechanisms, without any prejudices one way or the other,” Armitage said.

“Armitage laid out specific tasks for Pakistan, which would help the United States verify Pakistani action against militant infiltration into Indian-held Kashmir,” a senior Pakistani official said.  Armitage gave Pakistani officials information listing border areas where the United States believes Pakistan continues to assist militants, the official said (Seth Mydans, New York Times, June 7).

The long-term U.S. goal is to permanently stop infiltration across the Line of Control, and the United States expects India to reciprocate as it becomes clear Pakistan has taken the necessary actions, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday.  “The situation does remain very tense,” he said (State Department transcript, June 6).

For further information, see:

Stimson Center Background on Kashmir

Pakistani Embassy to the United States

Indian Embassy to the United States

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  South Asian Nuclear War Could Lead to Arms Race

A nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India might encourage other countries to develop nuclear arsenals, said Robert Einhorn, former U.S. assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation.  Einhorn’s comment came as tensions remained high in South Asia (see related GSN story, today).

“If it looked as if the world had lived through a nuclear exchange and it wasn't as horrific as people thought, I think that could have very dangerous consequences because people could figure:  ‘Well, these are weapons like other weapons, and we can use them as instruments of war,’” Einhorn said.

On the other hand, the potentially horrific consequences of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could shock other countries into taking action to prevent WMD and missile proliferation, he said. 

Many Asian and Western officials are concerned that an Indian-Pakistani nuclear war would lead to an arms race in Asia, according to the International Herald Tribune (see GSN, June 5).  At a regional security conference in Singapore that ended Sunday, participants said Asia is hovering between improving arms control and accelerating efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction (Michael Richardson, International Herald Tribune, June 6).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  State Duma to Begin Debate on Arms Reduction Treaty

The lower house of the Russian Parliament is scheduled to begin debate on the new U.S.-Russian nuclear arms reduction treaty next week, a Russian legislator said yesterday (see GSN, June 6). 

The State Duma is scheduled to consider a draft of a document that outlines the legislators’ general view of the treaty on June 14, said Dmitry Rogozin, head of the State Duma international affairs committee, according to Interfax (see GSN, May 29).  Debate on the treaty would focus on the potential benefits to Russia, he added.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has yet to present the treaty formally to the Russian Parliament for ratification, Rogozin said.  Russian legislators have said the treaty is likely to be approved in a final ratification vote expected in the fall (Associated Press/Yahoo.com, June 6).

Back to top

United States:  Air Force Test Fires Minuteman III ICBM

An unarmed Minuteman III ICBM was successfully launched today from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, according to the U.S. Air Force (see GSN, June 3). 

The Minuteman III was launched toward the Kwajalein Missile Range in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean and delivered three re-entry vehicles to targets there, according to the Associated Press.  The test was part of the Force Development Evaluation Program, which tests U.S. missile launch systems (Associated Press, June 7).   

Back to top

Russia:  Topol-M ICBM Tests Successfully

Russia successfully test-launched a Topol-M ICBM yesterday (see GSN, March 28).  The Topol-M is slated to replace Russia’s stockpile of SS-18 ballistic missiles (Agence France-Presse/SpaceDaily, June 7).  The missile hit a target on the Kura test range on the Kamchatka Peninsula after being launched from a mobile launch installation at the Plesetsk space center, according to ITAR-Tass (ITAR-Tass, June 6 in FBIS-SOV, June 6).

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  Administration Clears State Bioterrorism Plans

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson yesterday approved about half of U.S. state bioterrorism response plans, which will allow the states to receive the remainder of promised bioterrorism funding (see GSN, April 19).

“With these plans, we can now more aggressively build our health systems, providing greater protection and care for our citizens,” Thompson said.  “These plans will usher in a new era of cooperation between all levels of government when it comes to protecting the public’s health.”

The approval of the plans allows states and municipalities to receive the remaining 80 percent of the $1.1 billion in bioterrorism grants approved in January.  More than 60 states, territories and cities — including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — applied for funding.  States immediately received 20 percent of the funding at the start of the program. 

Health and Human Services experts have fully approved the plans of 24 states and two cities, withheld some funding pending a further review of the plans of 24 states and one city and gave two states, eight territories and Washington, D.C., extensions for their plans.

The department will now work with state and local governments to implement their plans and will provide technical assistance, Thompson said.  Health and Human Services has asked the states for progress reports on the implementation of their bioterrorism plans by Oct. 1 (U.S. State Department release, June 6).

Individual States

New York state has received $60 million in bioterrorism grants, according to Newsday.  Of that funding, more than $26 million went to New York City’s Health Department.  Nassau County received $1.3 million, and Suffolk County received $1.4 million.  Every hospital in the municipal New York area also received $10,000 for training programs (Laurie Garrett, Newsday, June 7).

Pennsylvania received the remaining $30 million it had been allocated, according to the Associated Press.  Of the state’s $37 million in funding, $32 million has been allocated for infectious diseases surveillance efforts, expanding laboratory capacities and upgrading communication systems.  The remainder will be allocated to better prepare hospitals to respond to a bioterrorism attack (Associated Press, June 7).

Hawaii received $8.4 million in bioterrorism funding, according to the AP.  The funding will go toward improving the state’s public health infrastructure, state officials said (B.J. Reyes, Associated Press, June 7).

Washington state is set to receive the remaining $16.5 million of the $20.6 million in bioterrorism grants it has been allocated, according to the AP.  Of that, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided $18.1 million in general bioterrorism funding, and $2.5 million will go toward hospitals’ plans to respond to a bioterrorism attack (Associated Press II, June 7).

For more information, see:

Health and Human Services fact sheet

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Medical Schools Modifying Courses

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.S. medical schools have begun re-examining and altering their curriculums to better prepare soon-to-be physicians against the threats of terrorist attacks involving biological weapons, experts told Global Security Newswire this week.  One expert said all medical students should be required to receive some training in recognizing and responding to a biological weapons attack.

Although changes are being made to medical school courses to better teach students clinical information on diseases that could be used as biological weapons, what is most needed is to teach students how to think differently in order to deal with an intentional attack, they said.

“It is important for curriculums to change,” said Luciana Borio, a fellow at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies.  “But it’s hard [to make changes] since curriculums are so packed with information that students need to know day-to-day” when they become physicians, she said.

Most medical schools teach little to nothing on biological weapons, said John Sinnott, director of the infectious diseases division of the University of South Florida College of Medicine. 

When they are taught, some biological weapons agents such as anthrax are included in classes on microbiology or infectious diseases, according to Deborah Danoff, associate vice president of the division of medical education at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).  When agents are discussed in microbiology classes, they are not taught in the appropriate context, Sinnott said.  Other potential biological weapons, such as smallpox, are only taught from a historical perspective, Danoff said.

Although students who are planning to enter certain medical specialties, such as emergency medicine or infectious diseases, need to have a higher level of information on biological weapons, all medical students should at least receive a rudimentary amount, Borio said.  It would be impossible for physicians to consider the possibility of a patient being ill with a biological weapons agent if they have never been exposed to such information, she said.  The USF medical school is already examining changing its first-year microbiology curriculum to include lectures on biological weapons agents, Sinnott said.

Cannot Know It All

What is even more important than teaching the potential symptoms and treatments for biological weapons agents is teaching medical students new ways to look at potential attacks and better ways to work with public health, experts said.  In general, if someone who is sick comes to a physician’s office, the doctor will look for the most likely symptoms and causes, Danoff said.  In the new environment after the Sept. 11 and anthrax attacks, doctors need to be able to think about the uncommon causes as well, she added.

Medical students should not be expected to memorize information but instead should be trained to appreciate that various diseases can be used as biological weapons, Borio said.  They also must be prepared to look at a disease as being intentionally caused, instead of naturally occurring as they are now trained to do, Sinnott said. 

Students must consider the thought processes of terrorists who conduct biological attacks, especially since it is impossible to teach students all the possible scenarios for such an attack, he said.  For example, “people have to learn that there could be two diseases, not one” used in an attack, Sinnott said, adding that students also need to think about how such attacks would be carried out.

“Facts [can] get lost,” Sinnott said.  “Process of thought does not get lost in memory.”

Public Health

Medical school students should also learn how to work with federal, state and local public health departments, which would be crucial in the event of another biological weapons attack, experts agreed.

When the first case of last fall’s anthrax attacks was discovered in Florida, it took a rare set of skills for doctors there to be able to identify an attack and to contact public health officials — skills students need to learn, Borio said

Sinnott agreed that it is essential to teach students the importance of working with public health officials in order to counter a biological weapons attack.

“Physicians are realizing the importance of this by the minute,” he said.

Students must also learn how to obtain and use information on biological weapons provided by state and local health departments, Borio said.  For example, the New York state health department has available for physicians a Bioterrorism Rapid Response Card, which has printed on it contact numbers and how to recognize symptoms of biological weapons agents, she said.

“It’s a good idea, but only if physicians are exposed early on,” Borio said.

First Steps

The AAMC has created a panel to develop a set of biological terrorism curriculum recommendations and should have a report prepared by fall, Danoff said.  The association, however, will not “dictate” to medical schools what changes should be made, she said.

“You couldn’t walk into a school and say you need to teach 100 hours of X,” Danoff said.

Instead, the AAMC will help medical schools by connecting them to other schools that have already made successful changes and by providing teaching aides and materials, Danoff said.  Medical schools will be much more open to this kind of approach, she added.

Any changes to medical school curriculums to include more information on biological weapons should fundamentally alter what medical school students learn, according to Borio.

“[It is] not curriculum substitution, but just thinking about how the world has changed,” she said.

Back to top

Smallpox:  First Set of Hearings Hear Vaccination Views

Most participants at a New York City meeting on smallpox vaccination policy yesterday said that the United States should not vaccinate its entire population, but a number of speakers called for vaccinating health care workers, who would care for victims in the case of a terrorist attack involving smallpox.

The speakers were attending a forum at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York that is part of a series of meetings to gather opinions before two panels make recommendations on whether to vaccinate the U.S. population against smallpox (see GSN, June 6).  Current policy is to vaccinate only a small number of scientists and laboratory workers who work with smallpox and related diseases.

Some of the attendees called for vaccinating health care workers preemptively because they would be at greater risk of infection.  Most of the participants, however, opposed vaccinating the entire population due the risks involved with the vaccine.  Up to 38 million U.S. citizens would be at serious risk of complications from the vaccine, according to the New York Times (Lawrence Altman, New York Times, June 7).

More than 150 public health officials attended yesterday’s Manhattan meeting, but it was a surprisingly small number, according to the Washington Post. 

Health officials also met yesterday in San Francisco, and meetings are scheduled for Saturday in St. Louis, Mo., and Tuesday in San Antonio, Texas.  National health experts are expected to meet in Atlanta, Ga., on June 19-20 to recommend if any changes should be made to U.S. smallpox vaccination policy (Christine Haughney, Washington Post, June 7).

For further information, see:

CDC Smallpox Information

Journal of the American Medical Association Background

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Hijacker Told U.S. Employee He Wanted Cropduster

Mohammed Atta, suspected ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, applied for a U.S. loan to buy a cropduster, asked about U.S. landmarks and mentioned al-Qaeda during an interview with a federal employee two years ago (see GSN, June 4).

Johnelle Bryant, a U.S. Agriculture Department employee in Homestead, Fla., said she talked with Atta for more than an hour when he applied for a loan in May 2000.  Atta said he wanted a $650,000 loan to buy a cropduster plane, Bryant said during an interview yesterday on ABC’s World News.

Atta said “he wanted to build a chemical tank that would … take up every available square inch of the aircraft except for where the pilot would be sitting,” Bryant said. 

Atta offered Bryant money to buy an aerial photograph of Washington that was in her office, and he asked her about security at the World Trade Center (Washington Post, June 7).  “How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and the monuments in it?” Atta said, according to Bryant.

He also asked questions about other monuments and landmarks, including the Dallas Cowboys football stadium, Bryant said (Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, June 7).

Bryant said Atta also said Osama bin Laden would be “the world’s greatest leader,” but she said she did not know who bin Laden was then.  “He could have been a character on ‘Star Wars’ for all I knew,” she said.

Abu Zubaydah, who U.S. officials have been questioning and believe was an al-Qaeda leader (see GSN, May 23), earlier told U.S. officials that terrorists decided to hijack airliners after Atta was turned down for a loan to buy smaller planes (Leo Standora, New York Daily News, June 7).

Bryant denied Atta’s request for a loan because he was not a citizen, and she said he became agitated and threatened to kill her and steal her money. 

Bryant did not inform the FBI about the incident until after Sept. 11.  “How could I have known” about his intentions, she said in the ABC interview.  After the attacks, U.S. authorities ordered all cropdusters not to fly, apparently after Bryant informed the FBI of her meeting with Atta, according to the Globe and Mail (Koring, Globe and Mail). 

Back to top

ABM Treaty:  U.S. House Prevents Congressional Vote on Withdrawal

The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday voted 254-169 against a motion that would have challenged the U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see GSN, June 6).  The motion, introduced by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), said the consent of Congress was needed before the United States could withdraw from the treaty (Washington Post, June 7).

For further information, see:

ABM Treaty Text

U.S. Fact Sheet on Withdrawal from ABM Treaty

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  Nevada Files Federal Lawsuit

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON —The state of Nevada filed a federal lawsuit yesterday against the U.S. Energy Department, challenging the department’s final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed long-term nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain (see GSN, June 6).

“The Department of Energy has utterly failed to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act — the nation’s most fundamental environmental law, and one whose requirements must be met,” said Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa in a press release.  “By rushing the EIS out the door ... DOE has made a mockery of NEPA and must be challenged.”

The Yucca Mountain EIS, completed in February, violates NEPA and related provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act — the legislation that regulates the Yucca Mountain project — in a number of ways, Del Papa said.  The EIS failed to account for the environmental effects and terrorism risks of thousands of nuclear waste shipments traveling throughout the country, and through major urban areas, en route to Yucca Mountain, the lawsuit claims (see GSN, May 22). The EIS also did not consider the environmental impacts of 54 of the sites that would ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, according to the lawsuit (see GSN, April 26).

The Nevada lawsuit claims that Energy’s decision to use man-made waste containers as part of the repository, instead of relying solely on geologic features, is prohibited by law and therefore the EIS evaluates a prohibited plan (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2001).  The department also included design options for the construction of an aboveground storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site, which is prohibited, and did not consider other nuclear waste storage options that did not require the use of Yucca Mountain, according to the lawsuit.

The EIS also lacks sufficient detail to allow the public to fully evaluate the Yucca Mountain project, the lawsuit says. Even though the EIS was completed a month before Energy recommended the Yucca Mountain site, it was not provided to Nevada and the public for comment, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also claims Energy did not provide a mandatory 30-day circulation period before it issued the EIS and did not issue a mandatory Record of Decision.

“The American people deserve an exemplary environmental review of this project — better than anything ever before performed,” Del Papa said.  “Instead, we have a document that is tantamount to fraud and that has been described to me by highly experienced environmental lawyers as perhaps the worse EIS of its kind ever produced.”

Guinn Looking Forward to Energy’s Day in Court

Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn said he is looking forward to seeing Energy and the nuclear power industry in court (see GSN, April 12).

“For the first time in this process, DOE won’t be able to hide behind its political allies in Congress when the courts begin their review of DOE’s record on this project,” he said in a press release.  “We have developed some real momentum going into the home stretch, and we’ve made progress that people thought was impossible.”

Back to top